Chiam See Tong
Singapore
“Sir, Singapore's sovereign wealth fund companies, Temasek Holdings and GIC, returned 17% and 9.5% yearly respectively, using largely Singaporeans' CPF money. Why is CPF returning 2.5% on the Ordinary Account and 4% on the Special Account only?”
“Thank you, Sir, for allowing me to take part in this debate. Under Singapore law, single parents are treated as singles who are not eligible to purchase a Housing Board flat unless they are 35 years old and they are also given reduced children benefits like lesser maternity leave and no Baby Bonus.”
“Sir, the collection of revenue from ERP gantries is way above the total amount of revenue lost by the Government from the exemption of household TV and radio licences. I would urge the Government to review and reduce the charges at ERP gantries for vehicles entering the ERP zones.”
“Although the Government is pumping $120 million a year to support needy students in all levels through a slew of enhanced financial aid schemes, schools funds and bursaries, we should not forget to look into the plight of students who have been cheated by unscrupulous education centres by helping affected students to pay or re-finance the…”
“Thank you, Mr Chairman, for allowing me to join in the debate. I would like to touch on fairer distribution of treating scholars amongst schools. MOE should ensure fairer distribution of teaching scholarship holders after graduation from NIE to the various schools.”
“Children and adults with special needs deserve better protection. It will reduce the anxiety of both caregivers and patients with special needs, like the mentally-ill and autistic children. I urge the Government to issue special I-cards to these patients.”
The complete record
Every one of 4,205 lines we hold for Chiam See Tong, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 10 of 85.
“Sir, Singapore is Malaysia's second largest investor. Singapore's investments in Malaysia are only superseded by those of America. America is Malaysia's largest investor. Malaysia is Singapore's largest trading partner. Singapore is physically connected to Malaysia by a Causeway. Singapore depends on Malaysia for its water supply. This water supply seems to be a troublesome issue. As reported by Dr Ong, an article published that if Singapore is self-sufficient in water, I suppose that much of the quarrel between Singapore and Malaysia will be taken away, but I believe even if there were no water issue, because of our proximity with each other, there shall be some form of quarrel from time to time. The good relationship between Malaysia and Singapore is of paramount importance. What is worrying is that these angry words can escalate. This kind of situation has been going on for the last 10 years. It is not a recent event. I believe the quarrels between Singapore and Malaysia are there for more than 10 years in fact. Malaysia has complained of Singapore being "unneighbourliness'' and arrogant. Some Singaporeans have called their fellow countrymen to boycott shopping at Johor Bahru and to stop travelling to Malaysia. It would appear that, with the passage of time, the relationship between Singapore and Malaysia has not improved. In fact, it has worsened. The words of war have escalated and become quite intense recently. Last month, the Malaysians paper the Minggu Malaysia reported, "Following the uproar over the reclamation of land off Pulau Tekong, noises are being made about going to war with Singapore. This time, it is a small group of Malaysians who are beating the drums of war.”
“NCMPs are chosen from amongst the Opposition candidates who have won the most votes or the best losers among them. In the case of Mr Steve Chia, I believe he had garnered about 35% of the total votes cast, and I must say that winning 35% of the votes cast is a respectable achievement. I can tell you that it is not so easy for an Opposition candidate to wrest 35% of the votes from a PAP candidate. To a certain extent, one can say that Mr Steve Chia has won his place in Parliament with 35% representation. In some countries where they have proportional representation, one can get elected into Parliament with only 5% of the total votes cast. Although we do not have that system in Singapore, we do have a system where NCMPs are appointed to Parliament. Mr Steve Chia need not be defensive about his appointment to Parliament. His appointment is certainly with merit. He does represent quite a sizable number of people at Chua Chu Kang. As regards his remuneration, I think if a poll were to be taken at Chua Chu Kang, I would think that 35% of the voters who voted for him would certainly want their NCMP, Mr Steve Chia, to be adequately paid. They would surely consider the person they voted can make valuable contributions to Parliament and to the people of Singapore, and should be properly rewarded. Mr Steve Chia is no laggard. He is hardworking. He has filed, I believe, 24 cuts in this year's budget debate. I think this is more than many of the older MPs, including myself. Sir, may I suggest that in order to give proper recognition and respect to NCMPs, their allowance should be raised from 15% to at least 50% of an elected MP's allowance?”
“All because the defeated PAP candidate is made the Advisor to the CCC and I, the MP for that constituency, has been left out. I must say that the Government cannot take defeat. Although the PAP candidate has lost at Potong Pasir, the way that constituency is run is based on the premise that the PAP candidate has won at Potong Pasir in the last election. The beaten PAP candidate is made the Advisor to the CCC, CCMC, RCs and other grassroots organisations, whereas the Opposition MP there is treated as if he does not exist. That is why I am making another call to the Government to recognise the Opposition MP at Potong Pasir as a legitimate representative of the people at Potong Pasir, and not someone else. If the Government really wants to remake Singapore, then it must uphold the democratic system, recognise all elected representatives of the people to Parliament, and not only elected PAP representatives. Sir, I shall go on to the next cut and I will speak on NCMP honorarium. My speech will be confined to the honorarium or allowance given to NCMP, and not to NMP, which I do not support. I understand from my colleague, Mr Steve Chia, that the allowance given to NCMP is only 15% of the elected MP's allowance. I must say that such a small allowance is derisory. NCMPs are different from NMPs on the following important points: (i) NCMPs, unlike NMPs, have taken part in elections, whereas the NMPs have no electoral experience or participation at all. (ii) As a result of taking part in elections, NCMPs have won a certain number of votes and they do represent those who voted for them when they are in Parliament, whereas NMPs do not represent anyone at all when they are in Parliament, except themselves.”
“Sir, thank you for allowing me to take one cut after the other. My first topic is on the recognition of the Opposition. This is not a new topic. As far as I am concerned, I have spoken on this many times in Parliament. The Government has torn down the office that was built for my use as a Member of Parliament at Potong Pasir, and has never rebuilt it since. On the part of the PAP candidate at the constituency, he is given an airconditioned room where he can conduct his political business in comfort and utter privacy. I have now to meet my residents during the meet-the-people sessions in an open void deck space which is not very suitable, because residents often want to consult me on very personal matters and they do not feel very comfortable, as they do not have any privacy at all. I have spoken on this matter and, in this respect, I said that I am treated no different from a roadside fortune teller when I meet my residents. Sir, I hope the Prime Minister can direct the HDB to restore my MP's office at the void deck at Potong Pasir as soon as possible. The Government should not discriminate against me as an Opposition Member. All PAP Members of Parliament are each given, I believe, a room to work in the constituencies. Why am I, as an Opposition MP, not provided with the same facilities? At the constituency level, the Government recognises the beaten PAP candidate at Potong Pasir more than me who has won at the last general election. The PAP candidate was not chosen by the majority of the Potong Pasir residents. Yet, he appears to have more authority than me, the elected MP. I have to apply to him, whom I have defeated at the elections, for funds for community projects and for any other matters that require the support of the CCC.”
“What the town council at Potong Pasir is just asking is only a walled-up space by the HDB and after that, I think the Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts will leave the rest to us. If the residents there, with the cooperation of the town council are willing to do it, why is the Ministry putting up all kinds of reasons and barriers to make it so difficult to start up a library?”
“The second part of the question is whether or not the Ministry is willing to persuade HDB to wall up an area at the void deck. If they wall it up, I think we will try to get the finances and if the town council and the residents there are willing to do it themselves, will the Ministry be willing to let us do it.”
“This time, I am happy to note that the Ministry is willing to give support to the application for CCL. First of all, may I know what sort of readership and what level of readership would the Ministry allow for a CCL to be built?”
“Sir, from what I gather from the answer given to my last question, the schools are still teaching Confucianism. If Confucianism is taught in a significant way, may I ask the Minister whether it will not be in conflict with the attempt of schools trying to nurture creativity?”
“May I know if Confucianism, as a subject, or as part of the civic lessons, or in any way, still taught in our schools?”
“We want to be able to face this changed world as a people, as a people who feel that we have got a stake in this nation. Therefore, we have to ensure that our Budget or our economic policy is well balanced with people understanding it, with people feeling that they play a part in it, and with people supporting it. In the 1970s, we were able to achieve unity of the people and we steered through the then difficult economic situation. Not only did we create an economic miracle, we also built a nation. We are now at the crossroads again. We want to ensure that all of us, cosmopolitans and heartlanders, feel that we are together on this ship, each playing a role in sailing through this difficult stretch of water. If we sail through this difficult stretch of water, then we would emerge with a stronger Singapore to face the 21st century.”
“I see Mr Chiam See Tong, in a sense, giving some support to what we are trying to do, saying that whatever that is given out in this Budget as relief is more than enough to balance off the increased tax liability on the people who are poor. He even said that while there can be concern about profiteering, he would be very happy to join the Committee to Combat Profiteering. Well, may I say that I sincerely invite him to join the Committee and work with us. We are here to achieve unity. We are here to involve everybody to support the new measures and the new Budget, necessary for our economic restructuring. In combating profiteering, we are going to invite the local community to judge whether a certain undue price increase amounts to profiteering. If it is, we will try to talk to the traders for precisely the same reason that Mr Chiam and Mr Inderjit brought up, that the traders were also subjected to price pressures, some of which might be beyond their control. Maybe the sole distributor may have jacked up prices because of certain international pricing policies set elsewhere. What is important for us is to ensure that people feel that we have a Budget that is really fair to everybody. Well, maybe not entirely fair to everybody, as not everybody would agree that the Budget is totally fair to him. But seen as a package, I think we have benefited here and there, and everybody feels that it is something worth supporting. I would say to Mr Chiam that he might want to let me know later whether he wants to accept this sincere invitation. I think many hon. Members will be talking about the economic and financial aspects of Budget. I would just want to emphasise on the heartware aspect. We are going to go through a very, very important phase in order to face a changed world.”
“I think some of the proposals may make very good economic sense. But when we consider people's feelings as well as the kind of people who may be most affected by such radical changes, the outcome can be disastrous. We, in Singapore, are faced with a very big dilemma. We must compete with the potential competitors around the region and win. Because if we do not, we get skinned! And we were told that there were many ways of skinning us. But, on the other hand, if we have a Budget which is perfectly correct economically, but without due care for the people who may be very badly affected, then I think we will face an internal collapse. We lose cohesion; we lose unity. We will be finished with all our bones broken. We either lose all our skin or lose all our bones. Hence, we need a balanced, pro-growth, pro-job and, at the same time, caring Budget. It may not appear radical at first, but with clear direction and consistent implementation, it will all add up over time. Today we are facing a situation very similar to what we were going through in the late 60s and the early 70s. Just like that time, we have to generate growth, we have to generate jobs, we have to preserve the value of our savings, and we have to ensure that we do not have hyper inflation that eats away confidence and strength. And that explains why we cannot have deficit financing, certainly not on a large scale - cutting 30% here, 40% there. Such sudden and panic action will scare away foreign investors. I must say that on the unity part, I read the 4th May Lianhe Zaobao and I found something very exceptional.”
“On the one hand, the GST is raised to 5% and, on the other hand, retailers and hawkers shall seize the opportunity of the increase in GST to raise their prices. When GST was introduced in 1994, prices were increased by about 20%. This time round, since the GST is pegged at 5%, the price increases shall most likely be more than 20%. This will cause hardship to households with old people, infants and other dependants. On the people's part, they must be urged not to give in to hawkers and shopkeepers who practise blatant profiteering. Until now, without the Fair Trading Act or other statutes to control unfair trading, the Government and CASE cannot really do much. I am wondering how the proposed committee to check on prices can be useful when it has no enforcement powers. HDB flat dwellers are concerned at the impending increase in the monthly parking fees. At the moment, it is pegged at $55 a month for one parking lot. At $55, the HDB is already getting more than the land cost. It is therefore unfair and unnecessary to increase the cost of parking at HDB housing estates. If the monthly parking fees are increased, then it is a case of the Government giving rebates to HDB flat dwellers on the one hand and taking them back with the other. As regards the increase in GST, I hope the Government shall commit to holding down the GST at 5% and give a promise not to increase it for at least five years beginning from 1st January next year. The Minister of State, Prime Minister's Office and Ministry of Community Development and Sports (Mr Chan Soo Sen): Mr Speaker, Sir, what we have heard from the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance, I believe, is a pro-growth, pro-job and, very importantly, a caring Budget. We heard Mr Inderjit Singh wanting to do very radical things.”
“The surpluses are like huge monuments set up to give repute and manifest the power of the PAP Government. The surpluses that are tucked away do not benefit Singaporeans very much in their daily lives. The surpluses remind me of the pyramids of ancient Egypt. The old Pharaohs exuded power and might in the pyramids they built. At first, the people of Egypt were happy and joyful to labour under the hot sun, to cut stones and drag them to build the pyramids for their kings. In later years, when much of the stone supply in neighbouring quarries were exhausted, the Pharaohs had to source for stones further and further away. By then, the people of Egypt were quite exhausted. They could not see the purpose of building those huge monuments to perpetuate the rule of the Pharaohs. The Pharaohs had to use force to get their people to work hard, to go further and further afield to bring the stones back to construct the pyramids. I sincerely hope that the huge amounts of surpluses the Government has accumulated are not just for the purpose of perpetuating the PAP rule. I see that, at the present time, the economic difficulties of our people are not resolved yet. Unemployment stands at about 5%, and the world economy has not really picked up. Times are still tough for Singaporeans. Yet, the Government goes ahead to force the people to pay an additional 2% GST on what they consume. Government coffers shall probably swell by a couple of billion dollars. If this is not pushing our workers to work harder and contribute to the income of the Government, I do not know what is. The workers and the poorer Singaporeans shall probably suffer a double blow.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I must commend Mr Inderjit Singh on his very interesting speech. In fact, it was a good lecture, as far as I am concerned. He has touched on cost issues and he has also given his wish list. But I think it is very difficult because whatever spare money in the market, the Government will mop them up. Basically, I think the Government's intention is always to have a very strong surplus. Sir, I shall touch again on this topic of Government surplus. In the past, in the debates on Budget statements, I have highlighted the obsession of the Government in wanting to budget for a surplus for that year. This year, despite the recent economic recession that Singapore has just gone through, the Government is still bent on budgetting for a surplus, albeit a modest sum at $0.9 billion, compared to other years of $4-5 billion. However, with the 2% increase in GST and revenues from motorcars and other sources, I would not be surprised at all if the Government ends up with a budget surplus close to $3 billion. I have asked many times in this House why is there a need to have such a substantial budget surplus every year. If I am not mistaken, it is reputed that Singapore has about US$140 billion surplus. Why is there a need to accumulate such a mind-boggling sum of money? That colossal amount of money, I believe, is mostly invested abroad. Singapore does not really benefit much from such a large sum of money in terms of improvement for its people. Our quality of life has not improved by our surpluses when compared to those in the developed West. Our indigenous industries have not in any way benefited from our surpluses. Other than Creative Technology, which we have heard so much, we cannot speak much of our home-grown industries.”
“If they are honoured, will it be taken as more weight given to that promise, rather than looking through the criteria that he has just mentioned to the House?”
“Mr Speaker, may I clarify with the Minister? When a Minister makes an election promise at a general election, does he make that promise personally, or is the promise binding on the Government?”
“If I get the Minister right, the Ministry of National Development does not take note of anything stated by the Ministers during the elections, ie, whatever promises they have made mean nothing to his Ministry. What he is saying is that, despite promises made at the election these promises are still subject to all the rules and regulations of the Ministry of National Development, which means that the promises are just promises and they mean nothing at all.”
“Sir, clarification from the Minister. Is it not a promise and a matter of right for the residents there to get upgrading?”
“Sir, the Minister has cited the UK example. If I am not mistaken, normally, in England, before an election is held, they give at least one month's notice that an election will be held on a certain day, at least one month. So there is a preparation period. At least people can go around and do their campaigning one month before the election is held. But, in Singapore, nobody knows when the election is going to be held. It is such a good secret, state secret, that not even, I think, their own PAP members know of it, except the Prime Minister himself.”
“Sir, as regards the report of the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee, I think releasing its report six months earlier is definitely not too early. Even assuming there are changes of addresses within the six months, and normally there are, and even if you look at the Electoral Register, there is always that yellow section where you will find all the persons who have moved within the last three, four, five or six months. So this can be done. I cannot understand why the Minister is mentioning that six months is too long. I just want to remind the Minister that I am not asking for two years or one year. I am only asking for six months for the results of the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee to be announced before the dissolution of Parliament. In case he has forgotten my request, it is six months, not two years. As regards the deposit, I do not see any discrimination if there is a two-tier deposit. I wonder whether the Minister is willing to rethink and give us an answer or, at least, say that he will consider and not brush it off. As regards the increase in the number of days for campaigning, increasing it from eight to 14 days is very reasonable, and I hope the Minister will at least say he will consider, because this is definitely in line with the remaking of Singapore. If we want to have more vibrancy and ideas, the longer the election period, the more ideas will be thrown up. It is not a show. Let us get on with what we are going to do for Singapore. So will he also reconsider this 8-14 days request?”
“Sir, the Minister mentioned Mr Tan Kim Chuang. Is he saying that Mr Tan Kim Chuang is not a serious candidate? I am very certain that he is a serious candidate, although he lost his deposit in the process. So I do not know what his rationale is in mentioning Mr Tan Kim Chuang.”
“I am coming to it. The candidate will also have to discuss, being Asians, with members of their family, their wives, and most of them feel that $13,000 is too much, and they do not allow the serious opposition candidate to take part. The other rationale is that the deposit is pegged to the MP's allowance. Why do we not have two categories then? For incumbent Members who want to stand again, they can take this standard of one month's allowance. But those who are coming in for the first time and who are not MPs, we can reduce it to $3,000. I wonder whether the Minister will allow two categories of deposits.”
“Sir, as regards the election deposits, the rationale is that the Government wants to keep out frivolous candidates. The average thinking of Singaporeans is that $13,000 is definitely too high a figure. The non-PAP candidates, most of them, are not well off. In fact, personally, I know that many serious candidates who are in the opposition would have stood for the elections, but for this $13,000. It is not only the candidate himself who has to worry about the $13,000 ---”
“Sir, if I understand the Minister correctly, the delay of the publication of the report of the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee was due to September 11. Can he explain what has September 11 got to do with the preparation of the report of the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee? My point about the GRC is that you want to ensure minority candidates. The rationale behind it is that if you have a Chinese candidate and a non-Chinese candidate in a single-seat constituency, the PAP thinks that the Chinese candidate will win against a non-Chinese candidate. So to ensure that the PAP ethnic candidate gets into Parliament, they must have some non-ethnic candidates to come along with them, to bring them into Parliament. My point is: why do you need five other non-ethnic candidates to get the ethnic candidates into Parliament? I think one is enough.”
“To bring them into Parliament. Mr Wong Kan Seng: The purpose of the GRC is to ensure that Parliament has the representation of all our communities, including the Malays, Indians and other minority communities. So we have in the provision of the law, a minimum of three candidates in a GRC, but no more than six. That has been the practice all along.”
“Sir, I would like to make two clarifications with the Leader of the House. The first is regarding the NCMP. The Leader says that an NCMP is not elected but the issue is not whether he is elected or not. The issue that I brought up is that democracy is representation. But, in his case, to some extent, he has representation, about 35% of the votes. Even the first NCMP, Mr J B Jeyaretnam, I think, had 44% of the votes in a GRC. The issue is representation, and not whether he is the first to pass the post and he has obtained 50%. That is my point. The other point is regarding Chia Shi Teck. He lost when be obtained only 14% of the votes. My point is not that he dares or he wants to present himself in the electoral process. My point is that he was a high profile NMP, and the newspapers gave him a lot of coverage. So he went to stand for elections on the strength of his reputation as an NMP, and on that score, he lost. So my conclusion is that the people do not want an NMP.”
“Sir, I did say that Parliament will be different from now on.”
“Sir, can I make three clarifications? Two are in regard to the last speaker, Miss Penny Low. What I said was that the NMPs dilute the Opposition in Parliament, and not dilute the elected Members. The purpose of my bringing up the instance of an NMP standing for election where he obtained only 14% of the votes and of course lost the election was not to show his contribution, but the fact that he was rejected by the electorate. In other words, my point is that NMPs are rejected by the voters. The other clarification is with regard to Assoc. Prof. Chin. I do not support the NMP scheme. I brought up the point that the next NMP, if he comes along, could move a motion to repeal the Maintenance of Parents Act because I think the Leader of the House asked me to repeal it and I said no. I said the next one who comes along. I assume that this motion will probably be passed.”
“It makes for a nicer garden. For these reasons, Sir, I support the motion.”
“NMPs also take an Oath of Allegiance to the Constitution and to the people of Singapore to serve Singapore. We can expect them to give off their best and, if they do not, then it is quite obvious what consequences will occur. But the success or failure of the scheme depends very much on the quality of the candidates willing to put themselves up for this. Here, I would put it this way. For example, it is a common perception of many that those who entered the Miss Singapore competition may not be the most beautiful, charming or eloquent women in Singapore. There are many we know who prefer not to display their beauty and brains in competition. In the same way, if our most intelligent, independent and non-political minds were not persuaded to come forward to participate in the NMP scheme, then it would be time to re-examine the scheme. But, as of now, I would agree entirely with my Parliamentary colleague, Mr Davinder Singh, that the time has passed for questioning whether on principle such a scheme is correct. The scheme has produced excellent MPs who have added much value to the debates in this House and we should, in this Parliament, continue to support the scheme so long as there are good people who can contribute their non-partisan views publicly. Their non-partisan support for Government policies and legislation will be reassuring to Singaporeans. And if they do object to legislation, then Ministers would have to take that into account. All in all, I believe very strongly that it can only improve the general quality of Parliament and Government in Singapore. And to borrow an analogy from Dr Wang Kai Yuen, if we can have a rose garden, why not have different types of roses, rather than just red roses or white roses. Why not have yellow roses also?”
“In answer to Mr Chiam, it is not really wrong for NMPs to agree with the Government if they have good reasons for doing so. The point is that they are not bound by Party Whip, that they can express their personal opinions as to what they think is the value of such legislation. So it is not that they are sitting on the fence if they agree or disagree. They will take a position. And I do think that NMPs take risks when they decide to put themselves up for Parliament. I remember saying so to Prof. Walter Woon, who was a colleague of mine at the Faculty of Law, when he came to talk to me about his intention to be put up as an NMP. I remember telling him that the public would scrutinise him and that he would definitely lose privacy and that, as an NMP, as any MP, he would run the risk of looking ridiculous in public if he were to come up with quirky ideas. He had not. But we have on occasions seen NMPs coming up with strange ideas. But the point is that they take individual responsibility for their views and indeed can be said to be at more risks because they do not have party support. And as for not having a feel of the ground, sometimes, not always, I think that is a strength. NMPs can concentrate on the merits of legislation instead of being preoccupied with the political consequences which may impact adversely. Much has been said of the Maintenance of Parents Bill, which Prof. Walter Woon introduced, and Mr Chiam himself pointed out that there were some fierce adverse comments from Members of this House as well as from certain sectors of the public. But, as an NMP, he can afford to do so because he is responsible only for his views, he is himself, but he is acting in the interest of Singapore.”
“To be clear about that, let us first look at what the elected Members are here for. The elected Members represent their party in the House, both Opposition as well as the PAP. We are elected on the party's manifesto, with promises made to the party as to what the voters can expect if they voted for us, the candidates of the party. That is also the reason why we have the Party Whip because it is necessary to keep party discipline in the House so as to make good on election promises. For those who are elected on this basis, we must in general believe in supporting the party's programme. Otherwise, we might as well run as independents or apply to be NMPs. Given that this is the case, I think it will be on very rare occasions when the Whip is lifted, or on where personal conscience dictates, that we, PAP MPs, would not support a piece of legislation proposed by the PAP Government, especially when it is attempting to carry out the programme promised to the people. And if PAP MPs make speeches in support which are then not given as much prominence as the NMPs who project a different point of view, I do not think we need to feel apologetic. That is something which we should expect the media to do, even though we may not agree with it. The Minister's speech supporting such legislation is usually taken to state the policies for such legislation and the MPs' speeches in support are just seen as excess baggage, no matter how interesting the speech might otherwise have been. We can only hope to persuade the media to give us more attention, or as much attention as they give to the NMPs. If we look at the NMPs, the NMP scheme is intended to add value to the debate precisely because they offer the opportunity for non-partisan voices to be heard.”
“May I be so bold as to take out the rhetoric and the eloquence and just take them for what they are. First, he said that the NMPs are not risk-takers. Second, that they come in through the back door without having to go through an election. Third, they seldom, if ever, raise issues that are not already raised by the elected MPs. Fourth, that they represent no constituency and know very little, if anything, about the feelings and views of the people. Fifth, there is ample supply of lawyers, accountants, doctors and we do not need more of them in this House. And, sixth, that the couple who did well, Prof. Walter Woon and Dr Kanwaljit Soin, cannot be taken as evidence of the success of the scheme, and I remember the hon. Member saying that two swallows do not make a summer. Finally, the seventh argument is that, which he mentioned again just now, there may be difficulty in choosing the right NMPs, or, for that matter, ensuring that the various interest groups are represented, or vice versa, that extremists may find their way in through such a scheme. Apart from these magnificent seven reasons which I think we must try to rebut if we want to support the scheme, I think Mr Leong referred to the idea of shelf space and that as NMPs are not bound by the Party Whip, they are often given much better coverage, make a better impression on the media, than the elected MPs; in other words, they make the elected MPs look dull, ordinary and even boring. Sir, these are very powerful arguments indeed and they have to be taken into account. However, I have to say that I have great personal discomfort in having to disagree with the hon. Member for Ayer Rajah and state why I support the scheme. First of all, we must be clear why the NMP scheme is of such value to the House.”
“They asked me. Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung: Yes, but you did say the "next NMP" which suggests that you are in favour of the scheme. And I have to say that I have to address Mr Chiam's very serious point about Nominated Members of Parliament undermining the system of democracy. Mr Speaker, Sir, I think anyone with even a casual knowledge of democracy and models of democracy would realise that in Westminster, for example, we have the House of Lords which comprises non-elected Members and, in fact, they do have even non-partisan members sitting in which they call the cross-benchers. So the notion of Nominated MPs, as it were, is not unknown to the world of democratic governments. So we have to say that these two arguments would not wash in relation to whether we should have NMPs or not. Sir, if I may address the motion. I have to say that when I first came to Parliament in 1997, I recall listening to the eloquent speech of the hon. Member for Ayer Rajah against the NMP scheme. And I remember, with some trepidation, how I am going to be able to match such eloquence, or even come close to such eloquence. I remember, in particular, the array of reasons he gave as to why we should not have such a scheme. And I took the liberty to list them out and, strangely enough, they also comprise the "magnificent seven" reasons. If I may digress a bit, Mr Speaker, when some Members of this House referred to our new MPs, the "magnificent seven", I have to say that, if I remember the movie The Magnificent Seven correctly and the Japanese version of Seven Samurai, I think at the end of the film, only two survived. So may I wish the magnificent seven good luck and may the best man win. Let us turn to Dr Tan's seven magnificent reasons.”
“I say probably the next MP will repeal it. Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung: You said "next NMP".”
“And if you erode democracy and make people think that you do not need to elect your MPs, let the Government appoint them, it is going to be a wrong signal sent to the people of Singapore, and I do not think that it is good for Singapore. As for the contributions of Prof. Walter Woon in initiating the Maintenance of Parents Act, actually, to me, as a nation, I think we should not have this Act at all. He thinks it is good; but I think it is bad. What sort of society will we become when the parents have to sue their children to get maintenance? I think in Israel and England, they have this Act, but after a while people became so shameful about the whole thing that that Act just died a natural death. I hope the Maintenance of Parents Act will also die a natural death. [Interruptions]. I suppose you are waiting for the next NMP to do it. [Interruptions]. I said "you", not me. Mr Davinder Singh has said that the quality of new MPs is impeccable, and I entirely agree with him. In fact, these few days, I look forward to hearing many of them speak. So if we have such good quality elected MPs, I certainly think we can leave NMPs out this round. I think they will just be redundant, occupying unnecessary spaces here. Sir, before I end, I call for a division on this motion.”
“Either you are for or against an issue. The other day we heard that the person who stands in the middle of the road gets run down by a motorcar. And during the time of the cold war, some nations sided the Soviet Union and others sided the US and the west, but some Asian countries conveniently said that they were neutral. And the one time Secretary of State of the United States, Mr Dulles, said, "neutrality is immoral". If neutrality is really immoral, then there is no place for NMPs in Parliament because they cannot take the neutral ground or be the third voice. We have debated for five days on the remaking of Singapore. It would appear that the Government hopes that things will change, Singapore would open up a bit, people will speak up, entrepreneurs will be bred and help Singapore out. But this NMP scheme is not in sync with this whole concept of the new Singapore. NMPs are, firstly, not elected MPs; they do not have to win the battles to have their own right to be in Parliament; they are appointed. We are in a way going back to the authoritarian style - appointments rather than open up and be democratic. I think the NMP scheme does not fit in with the times. Times have changed. We are going to see a new Parliament and it is going to be changed. As the Government has said, they are going to lift the Whip more often and, I think, circumstances have changed and therefore it will be for the greater good of Singapore if there were no NMPs in Parliament. Mr Raymond Lim also argued that today NMPs are here for the national interest. I can say that they are not for the national interest for the simple reason that they will erode our belief in democracy, in representation, because they do not represent anyone.”
“Because we are representatives of our constituents, we are elected by them. As for NMPs, they are not representatives. They represent only themselves or, more likely, represent the ruling party that selected them and put them in. Sir, whatever Mr Davinder says, I still believe that we represent our constituents, and the people want their representatives in Parliament. That was clearly proven by one NMP who was highlighted in the papers. He had a high profile, and he thought he could win easily at an election. He went to have a try - I think it was at Chua Chu Kang - and he just got off by the skin of his teeth in not having his deposit forfeited. I think he obtained only 14%. So what does that tell us? That tells us that the voters do not want an NMP, although he had performed so well in Parliament. He was rejected outright. Singaporeans do not want Members of Parliament who are not voted by the constituents. That was a very, very clear signal that the people do not want MPs who are not elected by them. Right from the start, from 1989, I disagreed with this scheme because I think that the real reason for the PAP wanting NMPs is part of its election strategy. They want the NMPs to dilute the Opposition in Parliament, and I think they also read the ground rightly that people do want the PAP to rule them but, at the same time, they still want Opposition voices in Parliament. So they say, "All right. PAP is ruling, and at the same time we provide you with Opposition voices in the form of NMPs.". But when the NMP scheme was announced, the NMPs were supposed not to take sides, either with the ruling party or the Opposition. They were supposed to be the third voice, to be on neutral ground. But I have said before, there is no such thing as a third voice, or neutral.”
“Sir, imagine the nine Nominated MPs are now in Parliament, and we have heard our debates for the last five days, and 61 speakers have spoken, do our Members here want to hear another nine Nominated MPs speak up? I do not think so. They cannot contribute anything else. Most of the points would have been already covered, and I would imagine more eloquently than if the nine Nominated MPs were present. I personally think that circumstances have changed. I have been here 18 years and I can see this particular session that we have just had is completely different from what I have seen before in this Parliament. The debates are not only lively but of very high quality. In fact, today we have seen PAP MPs debating vigorously against another PAP MP, which is a very, very rare thing to see in this House. So things will change with this Tenth Parliament, and I think for this particular Tenth Parliament we certainly do not need nine more Nominated MPs. I do not think they will make Parliament debates richer or of higher quality, which I think we already have. Unlike Dr Tan, who feels very strongly against NMPs because he says that he has to fight through the election hustings to get into Parliament, whereas NMPs just walk in through the backdoor without paying the price, well, I do not feel as strongly as him although I fought a hard, vigorous election. But my reason for objecting to having NMPs in this House is not because they do not pay a price for it but because it undermines the very system that we believe in, and that is a democratic system. In some countries, they do not call their legislatures "Parliament"; they call them "House of Representatives" - that is what made our legislature here democratic.”
“I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State about the cameras being installed in buses. Are they still being installed and are they effective?”
“Social cohesion can only be promoted in Singapore where the Government treats the whole population equally and fairly. The Government must stop its discriminatory attitude towards those who voted against the Government candidates in each election. The Government must stop its policy of using Government programmes to punish those who refuse to vote for it by saying that should the people not vote its candidates, then those constituencies will get their flats upgraded last, or that the MRT line shall not run through their constituency, or that the MRT station, having being built there, shall not be opened. How can the Government hope to build social cohesion if it practises discrimination? I really hope that the Government is really sincere in wanting to build social cohesion in Singapore and immediately stop its discrimination towards the Opposition MPs, Opposition members and Opposition supporters, for they too are Singaporeans and have an important role to play in nation building.”
“I would say that the success of the Government's intention to open up our society to encourage entrepreneurship and to build greater social cohesion shall depend mostly on how it treats the Opposition. If the Government continues to treat the Opposition very shabbily, as it is doing now, then the people know that the Government is not sincere and shall not respond positively. At the moment, the Opposition is treated like a step-child. The Government, as far as I know, has never officially said that it recognises the Opposition as one of our national institutions, and that the Opposition has a rightful place in Parliament. Instead, it says that the Opposition shall drive our foreign investors away from Singapore; the Opposition shall only be disruptive, which are all not true. The Opposition has an important role to play in Singapore's nation-building process, especially at this time of globalisation where competition shall be fierce. If the Government wants to succeed in its new programme of encouraging entrepreneurship and promote closer social cohesion, then it must change its treatment of the Opposition. It must treat the Opposition more civilly and show some respect for the Opposition, for after all they are elected by the people and not appointed by the Government and they are paid by taxpayers' money and not by the PAP. As a concrete proof of the Government's sincerity in wanting to build social cohesion, it must first restore the walled-up areas of the void decks for Opposition MPs to have a proper place to meet their constituents. The Opposition MPs cannot be treated like roadside fortune-tellers. There cannot be social cohesion where the two Opposition representatives of the people are not shown the proper respect they deserve.”
“Twenty years have been wasted mainly in trying to contain the Opposition, instead of spending that time to open up our society and allow more freedom, allow more people who are not sympathetic to the PAP to speak up. I would say that if that had been done, the spirit of leadership and entrepreneurship would have been built up in our people. Instead, the Government took those 20 years to teach Confucianism in our schools, heralded the virtues of Confucius. What that means was that Government wants the people to be more subservient, to be more obedient and not to criticise Government policies too much. What happened in those 20 years was that the private sector was subdued and could not be vibrant and dynamic, and only the Government side took the initiative. That means more Government-linked companies are formed and there would be only in-breeding in our business environment. No wonder, most of our industrial activities are connected with the manufacture of electronic goods. Once that sector collapses in the world market, Singapore gets into a bad recession. We have not diversified enough in our industries as there are no entrepreneurs to take the lead. The other initiative taken by the Government is to have greater social cohesion. The Government feels that with greater economic changes, there shall be more dislocation and adjustments by our people. With greater social cohesion, the people can cope better with the faster pace of change. I would agree with what the President said on those points. Promotion of entrepreneurship of our people and the inculcation of greater social cohesion are all one of the same issue. They are social and political in nature.”
“The Government has set up the Economic Review Committee to try to find solutions to maintain our high growth and to sustain our prosperity. But what can this Committee do? It cannot really do much. There is no quick-fix to the present world economic recession. It is a case of over-production in the world economy. It is a cyclical phenomenon. The world shall just have to sit this one out. As for Singapore, what can we do? I suppose the Committee shall recommend cost-cutting measures and be more competitive. The last time in 1998, it was our workers who bore the brunt of the Government's cost-cutting measures. I sincerely hope that that remedy is not used again. It must be recalled that the workers' 10% employer's component of CPF cut has still not been fully restored. It would be most unfair to our workers if their CPF is cut again when the damage done to them the last time has still not been made good. I hope that the labour MPs in this House shall fight for the workers' rights not to have another CPF and pay cuts. My view is that this time round, the Government should suffer some of the cost-cutting measures, if any, and not the workers. The Government could forgo some of its taxes, levies, fees and charges. Now with a change of economic situation in the world, the Government intends to change its political and social paradigms. It now falls on Singaporeans to be more inquiring and to adopt an adventurous spirit. It wants Singaporeans to be leaders in business, to be great entrepreneurs, to take more risks. I would say that the Government is probably 20 years too late.”
“If one visits America, one cannot escape the fact that nearly all clothing, toys, jackets, shoes, towels and many other retail items are made in China. Those goods that are made in China and sold in America are of very high quality. I am certain that this is not the end of the road but only the beginning. There shall be more investments brought into China from America and other developed western countries and it shall certainly affect Singapore and the region. It shall not be easy for Singapore and the region to get foreign investments from now on because of the competition from China. The foreign investments shall not only go to China in massive scale but also go to other copy-cat countries, for example, Dubai. I have been informed by a banker in Dubai that that country has fashioned its economy after that of Singapore. Dubai even starts its own airline, the Emirates, like that of SIA of Singapore. From what I see, the Emirates Airline is now operating very successfully. It certainly can give SIA a run for its money. Its fare structure, I believe, is even more competitive than that of SIA. In a recent stopover at Dubai, I noted that that enclave has become very prosperous. Dubai has also a high percentage of foreign workers, showing that its industries are booming. As for Singapore's attempt to branch into higher value-added industries, like the IT business and industries in the life sciences, and attempts to attract foreign talent, we are also beset with challenges from Japan, Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong. It appears that there are no easy solutions to our problems. It looks like indeed we have to truly settle for lower growth rates, growth rates at single rather than double digits of the past, unless, of course, we make material changes to our present situation.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir, for allowing me to join in the debate. Sir, I support the President's Speech. I think that what the President said in his speech are no exaggeration and are true. However, a journalist in The Sunday Times reported that the Government is reverting to its rule of crisis tactics again. I do not think that the Government is exaggerating or trying to create a crisis situation when it says that, "In 2001 the US economy slowed, the global electronics industry slumped, and we experienced our most severe recession since independence. The next few years will present us with the most severe challenges in our nation's history." Sir, I have been a Member of Parliament for 18 years, and during that period Singapore experienced three recessions: one in 1984/85, then again in 1998/99, and now in 2001/2002. The present round of recession is probably the worst of the three. All HDB shops in my constituency, without exception, complain of poor business. And at my weekly meet-the-people-session, I get regularly one or two applications for jobs per week either from my own constituency's residents or from persons of other constituencies. Whereas in the past recessions, I did not get any applications for jobs at all. I have no doubt that the recession this time is the worst of the three recessions I have come across as an MP. As for the challenges to be faced by our nation in the next few years, I think they are also very real. The most obvious challenge shall come from China. They have a massive population of one billion people. The workers there are just as intelligent, hardworking and disciplined as our Singapore workers and they have made a success of whatever foreign investments that have been ploughed into their country so far.”
“Everywhere he went, I noticed that Members of the other Parliaments in the region all respected him. I have got to thank Mr Tan for a job well done.”
“Sir, I would like to join the Leader of the House and the other speakers in congratulating you on your election as the Speaker of this august House. You have been a sportsman, and we have also read and known you as the Minister for Sports, and I am sure the Opposition will be very confident that you shall be a very fair person in dealing with the proceedings in this House. Sir, I have read in the papers that your advice to Members is to be "short and sweet" in their speeches, and I can assure you that the Opposition shall do that, no more six-hour speeches as in the past. So far, anyway, the Opposition has always made their speeches short and sweet. I know you shall be a very efficient and fair Speaker and we shall look forward to more fair debates in this House. I also take this opportunity to thank Mr Tan Soo Khoon for his job as Speaker. I had complained once or twice to Mr Tan Soo Khoon that I failed to catch his eye when I put up my hand. But I think he was too busy looking elsewhere. Nevertheless, I have known Mr Tan very well through our official visits to the ASEAN areas, in AIPO conferences, and, as other speakers have said, before we go to these meetings, we have to brush up on our singing, because this is one of the things that he loves to do. I was once caught unawares when he was announcing the Singapore delegates' programme in one of the ASEAN conferences - I believe it was in Bali - and he suddenly called my name to represent Singapore in a singing event. Can you imagine, I have to stand up and sing in front of an international crowd without preparation? Well, this is Mr Tan. But, anyway, we have lots of fun and we come to know each other very well. And I must say that he is not only respected in this House but he is respected in the region as well.”
“Sir, I made it clear to the Minister the last time when the prototype was shown to the MPs that Potong Pasir is definitely not interested in e-voting. An hon. Member: Why?”